I'm sure like most developers, you have gotten your code perfect only to test it on IE7 and it doesn't look right.
My analytics say that IE7 is one of the lower ranking versions of IE being used to view my website. My question is why do people still use IE7? Isn't it easier to update to a better version of IE than to still be on 7?
I'm not sure why you would be on such an old version of IE unless you are not computer literate and only use it for basic tasks.
I tried researching on the web but no such luck. Any thoughts?
Some people simply don't have a choice if their IT department has not upgraded them. If you're building your application for a specific client, build it to the lowest version they have to support. If you're just doing this on your own to publish, then just support 'modern' browser versions.
Related
I am creating a dashboard project for which i am using nvd3 but as we know svg is not supported in IE8 so it does not render graphs/charts in IE8..please suggest how i can make nvd3 work in IE8
I'm in the same situation and I think I may just ditch nvd3 (besides no ie8 support, I'm finding other bugs). I'm wondering, has anyone successfully used r2d3 with nvd3?
My concern is that r2d3 uses d3v3 now, which nvd3 is not presently supporting (currently d3v2... d3v3 support in the works as of writing this).
For an alternative to nvd3, I'm considering:
MorrisJS!
- Works on ie8 (Raphael-based), but a newer project and less flexibility/options with the charts comparatively.
Google Chart Engine!
- I think this may be the way to go (for my project), I don't like that its not open source, but I'm already working extensively with the Google Maps API and this solution is very stable and easy to use from my experiences thus far. In limited testing in ie8 it works very well.
Also, here's another stackoverflow question on this topic, [question]: nvd3.js rendering solution for Internet Explorer
...seems r2d3 was the accepted answer there, but no one really verified it.
The library r2d3 is "a customized build of D3 powered by RaphaelJS. The combination of D3 and Raphael enable developers to easily build data visualizations that work in IE7+ and all modern browsers." - it has its limitations (see the link for details), but it would be a good place to start
We've just started to used bugzilla and I found the web interface quite slow and not user-friendly.
I'm wondering if anyone have a suggestion for a client desktop or a browser add-on running under windows.
I found the following page: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Bugzilla:Addons
Which one of these clients (or any other) is the best ? Any other suggestions ?
I already tried Deskzilla Lite, which seem pretty good. However, there is a lot of field (edit bug) that we don't use (i.e. hardware, os, url, depends on, etc). Is there a desktop client that allow to remove and customize the field used in the bug entry form? On this one, please do not answer I can customize the bugzilla templates, we don't want to use the web interface anyway.
Well it depends on your Bugzilla Version. Since I updated to 4.0 I've got no alternative to Deskzilla since MyZilla is not running anymore. LiveProject looks pretty neat but I never tested it, so... Deskzilla lite. :/
I'm someone who wants to be up on the latest web technologies but also appreciate that alot people still use IE6/7/8. Is it a waste of code/time if half of it wont be displayed on most browsers? Is it just a case of using different style sheets, or just use one style sheet and if a browser doesnt support text-shadow, then screw it, they can see it without the nice effects. What are peoples thoughts?
It depends on your userbase. I am an intranet developer and my company still uses IE6(!!!) so we have no choice but to support IE6. I also develop some public facing websites and we use Analytical tools to see the which Browser is being used more and ignore ones which are less used. in this case IE6 was the least used Browser.
I won't go for HTML5 and CSS3 till Internet Explorer 9 or Firefox 4 (absolute release, not alpha or beta) is released, because these two browsers make up the most of web traffic (afaik, correct me if I'm wrong) and using html5 or css3 will be a big loss.
And yeah, it depends on your userbase too.
I'm developing a small-business oriented online app and decided to support only IE8, FF and Chrome. I also went for one stylesheet that degrades nicely (text-shadow, rounded corners). IE8 users will see square corners but it doesn't make the site unusable in any way.
I just think that the cost of making everything look perfect in all browsers (and maintaining it!) is much higher than the benefits.
The above also applies to HTML5 IMHO - unless you know that vast majority of your users will have an HTML5-compatible browser there's no need to invest in it right now. Unless the whole point of your site is to use one of the newest features.
Just tell yourself what problem of your users you are actually solving and solve that one.
I would like to know what the members of this great community think of developing and adjusting their web apps and sites in general to recent Google Chrome beta browsers on Linux and Mac OS X and of course Google ChromeOS.
Do you think it's too early and I shouldn't waste my time adjusting myself to something that might change due to bugs resolutions?
Thank you.
Since Google Chrome uses Webkit you could also (as an alternative) test against Safari or Konqueror instead. Chances are your test results will be very portable across these browsers.
I think you answered your own question. While it is good to test against multiple browsers, there is very little point in testing against a beta browser - especially one with as little marketshare as Chrome.
With that said, the only reason I could see testing against a beta browser, is that you want your website to look good in it as soon as it is released and becomes mainstream. But, I really only see this need arising for the browsers that, again, are more popular.
Code against the standard, if you code it right the browsers will move toward you - rather than you constantly playing catchup.
I'm trying to determine which open source (or at least free) bug tracker works the best with Mylyn. My hope is to find something that "just works" with good Mylyn support. I want to avoid lots of configuration and maintenance to get it going or keep it working with Mylyn. Also, I'd like the interaction to support as many types of fields and data exchange as possible.
I've heard that Jira is the best one to use, but the project I'm working on is a private closed source venture, and the funds aren't there to pay for Jira. Same for FogBugz. I need a free solution for closed-source code. Possible options that I've heard of so far are Bugzilla, Mantis, Redmine, and Trac. Is there a strong preference between these? Are there other better solutions?
At this time, we're using SVN for source control, but may transition to GIT in the future. Not sure if that matters, but if it does, I wanted to mention it.
The bug tracker will be installed and run on a linux VPS server with Apache and MySQL installed. But it can be customized to run other software if necessary.
Bugzilla, Mantis or Trac all work just fine with Mylyn. I would say that the best one supported is and probably will be Bugzilla, since eclipse people use it for their own bug tracking, and Bugzilla connector is developed by core Mylyn developers.
I have installed Redmine at home. I have it up at running with Mylyn in Eclipse too. I have used Bugzilla previously, but I think Redmine's interface is much cleaner and I especially like the roadmap feature.